Sunday, July 20, 2014

On the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops(USCCB) website under the title Beliefs and Teachings1 Vatican Council II is referred to vaguely. It is not said that Vatican Council II says in Ad Gentes 7, that all all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation and that Hindus,Buddhists, Jews,Muslims etc do not have it.So according to the official teaching of the Catholic Church (AG 7,CCC 846 etc) all non Catholics are oriented to Hell since they do not have what is needed for salvation.They need to formally convert into the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism' to avoid the fires of Hell.This is also the traditional pre-Vatican Council II teaching expressed by Church Councils and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

This important point was excluded from the US Catholic Catechism for Adults.

Also recently on a USCCB Daily Mass Readings video, Jem Sullivan mentioned the necessity of Jesus for salvation without the necessity of formal entry in the Catholic Church.This was a contradiction of Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Fr.Dan Merz, Associate Director, Secretariate of Divine Worship,USCCB in a letter defending Jem Sullivan implied that being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire is physically visible in the present times.So all people defacto do not have to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.

This is the standard policy of the USCCB and the Vatican.It is a rejection of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II because of alleged visibly known cases in the present time, who do not need the baptism of water.

Fr.Dan Merz cites the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1260 and infers that the person saved in invincible ignorance, who has not heard the Gospel through no fault of his own, is not a hypothetical posibility but an actual defacto known case in 2014. So for him too this is an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in 2014.This case would have to be visible and known to him, to be an exception.

This is USCCB heresy.It is a denial of the thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which Pope Pius XII called an 'infallible teaching'. It is a rejection of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846) which cites Ad Gentes 7 under the sub title Outside the Church No Salvation.The USCCB instead is saying outside the Church there is salvation and infers that there are such cases known to them in the present times.This is a contradiction of Dominus Iesus 20 which says even though there is potential universal salvation, which is available for all people, all need to enter the Church for salvation. The USCCB is saying that this is not true.

On the website of the Archdiocese of Boston(Ecumenical and Inter Religious Section) there is statement which says Jews do not need to convert into the Church for salvation.There is no correction from the USCCB.

All these errors are being taught in the USCCB Certification Course for Catechists.

-Lionel Andrades_________________________________________________

1.

Beliefs and Teachings

The Second Vatican Council declared that "the future of humanity is in the hands of those men who are capable of providing the generations to come with reasons for life and optimism." (GS, no 31). No one can live without the hope that life has ultimate and lasting meaning beyond the concerns and struggles, the joys and satisfactions of each day. Catholics find that meaning and hope in Jesus Christ, whom God the Father has sent into the world for the salvation of all peoples.Catholics find that meaning and hope in Jesus Christ, whom God the Father has sent into the world for the salvation of all peoples.

But the world can be a disturbing place. There is war and anxiety because of terrorism. There is the fierceness of competition and the injustices that come from greed. There are continuous distractions that come from the media, the numerous hours given to television, radio, and Internet. There are the unrelenting demands of work and family life.Yet in the midst of all this, people are generously loving within their families, with their friends, and for their communities. Nevertheless, a nagging question remains: Where is all this going? There is a persistent thirst for meaning and hope.Many people find refuge in various types of spiritual activities and communities that promise serenity in a hectic world and refuge from its pressures. They look to meditation techniques and to well-publicized personalities for ways to find tranquility and some hope for themselves.

In the midst of such a culture, the Catholic Church offers a message that is not its own, but comes from God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ two thousand years ago, yet is ever new and renewing as it is received, celebrated, lived, and contemplated today. The Church offers to all people the possibility of encountering the living God today and finding in him lasting meaning and hope.

God continues to be present in the Church as the Gospel of his Son, Jesus Christ, is proclaimed and received by her members through the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit.God continues to be present in his Church as her members are brought together by the Holy Spirit to celebrate the Seven Sacraments, most especially the Eucharist.God continues to be present in the Church as her members strive to live according to the example and teaching of Jesus Christ.God continues to be present in the Church as her members contemplate the great things God has done through his Son by the power of the Holy Spirit for the salvation of all people.The Church is a community of human beings who are still subject to sin, and so it is with humility that she offers herself as the meeting place with the living God. Her existence for two thousand years demonstrates the unceasing mercy and love of God in maintaining her in his grace as a faithful and repentant people. In a world of passing fads and transitory ambitions, she offers the substance of the wisdom of the Gospel and her growing understanding of it through two millennia. She offers the possibility of enriching the present moment with the gifts of a tradition rooted in God's self-revelation and with the hope and meaning for human life that come from God himself. In a world torn by war and injustice, she celebrates the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the gift of himself made eternally present and effective, to make all peoples one with him as head of a reconciled and healed community. In a world of violence against human life, the Church mightily defends life by her works of justice and charity as well as by her advocacy for the protection of all human life.---excerpted from the United States Catholic Catechism for Adultshttp://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/

I sent the following blog post toFr. Benedict Hughes, CMRI.This is the sedevacantist community which does not accept Vatican Council II which they interpret using the false premise ( dead in Heaven are visible to us on earth).

I Lionel Andrades a Catholic lay man in Rome who has a blog Eucharist and Mission accept implicit for us baptism of desire and reject explicit for us baptism of desire. For me the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are always invisible and accepted in faith.It is accepted in principle as a possibility but rejected as a defacto ( in reality) case. I do not know any person saved with the baptism if desire this year and neither do I believe any one else.

I mention this, since for the baptism of desire to be an exception or even relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus it would have to be physically visible and known to us in the present times.'A zero case of something is not an exception' says the American Catholic apologist John Martigioni. He too like me says that the baptism of desire is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is also the view of Archbishop Thomas Gullickson, the U.S Nuncio to the Ukraine.There are also priests in Rome who have told me that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the literal and tradiitonal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.It has nothing to do with the dogma.

So I accept the baptism of desire list which you have provided. I accept the baptism of desire but it is always implicit for me. None of the quotations which you have cited state that the baptism of desire is physically visible to us or that it is an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So I do not have a problem with the baptism of desire.

I affirm implicit for us baptism of desire along with the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the Church Councils, popes, saints, Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston,the present day community of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary,Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7),Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846,1257,1260,Dominus Iesus 20 etc.

Since you assume that the baptism of desire is an exception to extra eccleisam nulla salus you are inferring that these cases are visible in the flesh. Otherwise they would not be exceptions. You are also inferring that you can see the dead- saved with the baptism of desire etc.This is heresy.Since you are denying a defined dogma whose text does not mention any exceptions and you are changing the Nicene Creed from'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin' to 'I believe in three known baptisms for the forgiveness of sin, water, desire and blood'. This is irrational The baptism of desire and blood can only be judged and known by God.The baptism of water is visible and repeatable.It is the only defacto baptism.

May be about a year back I sent you this same information but you have not addressed it on your website.

Please note I do not deny the baptism of desire pe se. I qualify that there is only an implicit for us baptism of desire which is hypothetical and which I accept in faith.It is always implicit for us.This is what I affirm.Since it is implicit it does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction with reference to all needing to enter the Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith for salvation.Defacto there are NO EXCEPTIONS.I cannot meet someone in 2014 saved with the baptism desire.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a mistake in inferring that the baptism of desire was visible to us in the present times and so was an alleged exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is the Richard Cushing Error which was overlooked also by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Catholic traditionalists and sedevacantists.

This same irrational thinking on the visible to us baptism of desire is extended to Vatican Council II. So the sedevacantists for example, reject Vatican Council II since visible for them 'a ray of the Truth'(NA 2), explicit for them being saved with the 'seeds of the Word'(AG 11) and seen in the flesh cases of non Catholics saved 'in imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3) are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition.

This error of the visible-dead exceptions is the missing link which makes Vatican Council II traditional or non traditional.Without this false premise Vatican Council II is traditional on the issues of other religions and Christian communities and Churches.Ad Gentes 7 says all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation. Hindus,Buddhists,Jews,Muslims etc do not have 'faith and baptism' needed for salvation. Christian communities do not have Catholic Faith which includes the Sacraments through which Jesus saves and the faith and moral teachings of the Catholic Church, with which one avoids mortal sin and preserves Sanctifying Grace.In Heaven there are only Catholics who are there with 'faith and baptism' and without mortal sin.

Finally, for me the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was an inter office communication without the seal of the Secretary of the Holy Office.It was hidden for three years and then released by the liberal lobby in Boston.It was placed in the Denzinger by Fr.Karl Rahner S.J and the source cited as the reference was not the Holy Office but an American publication !!.If you consider it a magisterial document then concede that the magisterium made a mistake.